Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [APBR_analysis] Times Fouled and Possessions

Expand Messages
  • bchaikin@aol.com
    could you please run the numbers for say the 97-98 season for each team and list poss/48min game for each team (both off and def poss)? thanks... bob chaikin
    Message 1 of 8 , Jun 22, 2003
    • 0 Attachment

      could you please run the numbers for say the 97-98 season for each team and list poss/48min game for each team (both off and def poss)? thanks...

      bob chaikin
      bchaikin@...
    • bricks299
      Bob I don t have each team s technical FTA. Here are possessions per 48 minutes without team rebounds using FGA + (AFTA)(.457) + TO - OReb. Team rebounds are
      Message 2 of 8 , Jun 22, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Bob

        I don't have each team's technical FTA. Here are possessions per 48
        minutes without team rebounds using FGA + (AFTA)(.457) + TO - OReb.
        Team rebounds are normally close anyway:

        1997-98 OFF DEF Diff
        Chicago 91.5 91.2 +0.3
        Indiana 89.5 90.0 -0.5
        Miami 89.8 90.0 -0.2
        Charlotte 91.6 91.6 0.0
        Atlanta 89.6 89.9 -0.3
        Cleveland 91.7 92.1 -0.4
        New Jersey 93.5 93.4 +0.1
        New York 89.9 90.4 -0.5
        Washington 93.9 93.8 +0.1
        Orlando 90.1 88.9 +1.2
        Detroit 90.8 90.1 +0.7
        Boston 95.7 94.9 +0.8
        Milwaukee 92.1 92.4 -0.3
        Philadelphia 92.5 92.2 +0.3
        Toronto 94.7 95.0 -0.3

        Utah 91.6 91.4 +0.2
        Seattle 91.9 91.5 +0.4
        Los Angeles-L 95.6 95.6 0.0
        Phoenix 93.4 93.5 -0.1
        San Antonio 89.8 90.6 -0.8
        Portland 92.3 92.3 0.0
        Minnesota 94.9 95.1 -0.2
        Houston 93.3 93.1 +0.2
        Sacramento 94.2 94.2 0.0
        Dallas 91.8 91.7 +0.1
        Vancouver 94.2 93.7 +0.5
        Golden State 93.7 93.6 +0.1
        Los Angeles-C 94.6 94.5 +0.1
        Denver 91.6 91.7 -0.1

        The biggest difference is +/- 0.8 possessions per 48 minutes.

        Ben Ricks

        --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, bchaikin@a... wrote:
        >
        > could you please run the numbers for say the 97-98 season for each
        team and
        > list poss/48min game for each team (both off and def poss)?
        thanks...
        >
        > bob chaikin
        > bchaikin@b...
      • igor eduardo küpfer
        ... From: bricks299 To: Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2003 1:45 PM Subject: [APBR_analysis] Re: Times
        Message 3 of 8 , Jun 22, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "bricks299" <homecourtgames@...>
          To: <APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2003 1:45 PM
          Subject: [APBR_analysis] Re: Times Fouled and Possessions


          > Bob
          >
          > I don't have each team's technical FTA. Here are possessions per 48
          > minutes without team rebounds using FGA + (AFTA)(.457) + TO - OReb.
          > Team rebounds are normally close anyway:
          >

          <snip>

          The following is a comparison of the two FTA coefficients (.4 vs .457), as
          shown by the differences between offensive possessions and defensive
          possessions,by season. The smaller coefficient outperforms the larger
          exactly half the time, although with a larger standard error. The difference
          is small enough (to me) as to not warrant using the extra decimal places.
          What is needed is some empirical data, counting actual possessions in a
          game, and seeing how close we are.

          TrimMean SEMean
          .4 .457 .4 .457

          1974 -.037 -.044 .180 .194
          1975 +.055 +.043 .162 .151
          1976 +.702 +.693 .381 .371
          1977 -.006 -.008 .133 .117
          1978 +.072 +.102 .164 .145
          1979 -.031 -.015 .096 .084
          1980 -.158 -.167 .171 .197
          1981 +.045 +.025 .153 .153
          1982 -.016 -.013 .128 .119
          1983 -.016 -.007 .145 .122
          1984 -.005 -.001 .118 .120
          1985 -.005 -.005 .217 .208
          1986 -.009 +.004 .089 .082
          1987 +.012 +.015 .096 .084
          1988 +.004 +.019 .158 .134
          1989 +.011 -.005 .113 .095
          1990 -.013 -.013 .118 .102
          1991 -.057 -.025 .159 .152
          1992 +.061 +.064 .181 .169
          1993 -.032 -.040 .090 .069
          1994 -.090 -.080 .316 .305
          1995 -.006 -.012 .106 .103
          1996 -.003 -.003 .086 .081
          1997 +.012 +.021 .085 .081
          1998 -.008 -.003 .097 .084
          1999 +.017 +.013 .162 .167


          ed
        • Dean Oliver
          ... vs .457), as ... larger ... difference ... places. ... in a ... I ve got some of these. I ll try to pass them on after I m done traveling (again). My
          Message 4 of 8 , Jun 22, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, igor eduardo küpfer
            <igorkupfer@r...> wrote:
            > <snip>
            >
            > The following is a comparison of the two FTA coefficients (.4
            vs .457), as
            > shown by the differences between offensive possessions and defensive
            > possessions,by season. The smaller coefficient outperforms the
            larger
            > exactly half the time, although with a larger standard error. The
            difference
            > is small enough (to me) as to not warrant using the extra decimal
            places.
            > What is needed is some empirical data, counting actual possessions
            in a
            > game, and seeing how close we are.

            I've got some of these. I'll try to pass them on after I'm done
            traveling (again).

            My general comment to Ben when he first passed on his note to me was
            that he may be right that 0.45 works better to account for FT
            possessions. However, there are minor errors in the rest of the
            possession formula associated with team ORs and other little things
            that get lumped into that multiplier on FTA. Or you can get more
            complex with your possession formula, something BobC has done.

            I share the sentiment that it doesn't matter too much. Soon, we will
            be able to just count possessions for each team and do the simple
            division to get pts/poss. Still, the formula estimate will remain
            useful (in historical work, in individual possession calcs), but the
            difference between 0.4 and 0.45 won't make a huge difference in
            estimates. Plus, the multiplier changes with rules and enforcement
            of such. It was lower in the 3-to-make-2 era, for example, and is
            higher in the 1-and-1 world of college hoops.

            DeanO
          • bchaikin@aol.com
            I have noticed that many people have used the following formula to estimate possessions: FGA + (FTA)(.4) + TO - OReb The times fouled shooting factor should be
            Message 5 of 8 , Jun 22, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              I have noticed that many people have used the following formula to
              estimate possessions:

              FGA + (FTA)(.4) + TO - OReb

              The times fouled shooting factor should be .457; not .4.

              Or you can get more complex with your possession formula, something BobC has done. 

              the proper formula is:

              FGA + FTA/2 + TO - oreb - techFTA - (AOSF FGM) - flagrants

              (denominator 2 larger prior to 81-82 when 3 to make 2 bonus was in affect), but i add 0.33 to account for the techs and flagrants...

              and not more complex, just more exact, simply because it works in a simulation, which does not take into account technicals and flagrants, but does account for AOSF FGM (act of shooting fouls FGM, i.e. traditional 3 pt plays)...

              your average for 97-98 (the last year i updated the sim) was 92.4 poss/48 min/team. the sim uses 91.5 on average and the stats come out pretty much exact (i.e. avg pts/g/team right on the money, well within 1%)....

              if you ever run the B-BALL sim for a full season (takes about 40 seconds on a pentium to run an 1189 game season) it lists each team's poss/g in the final stats file...

              bob chaikin
              bchaikin@...
            • John Hollinger
              I agree with the general sentiment -- if 0.4 vs. 0.44 would only change the result between two players are teams with microscopic differences. Also, in the
              Message 6 of 8 , Jun 22, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                I agree with the general sentiment -- if 0.4 vs. 0.44 would only
                change the result between two players are teams with microscopic
                differences.

                Also, in the specific example that brought up this thread, there's a
                couple things missing -- times fouled on 3-pointers, flagrant fouls
                and breakaway fouls -- that would further adjust the coefficient.



                --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Dean Oliver" <deano@r...>
                wrote:
                > --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, igor eduardo küpfer
                > <igorkupfer@r...> wrote:
                > > <snip>
                > >
                > > The following is a comparison of the two FTA coefficients (.4
                > vs .457), as
                > > shown by the differences between offensive possessions and
                defensive
                > > possessions,by season. The smaller coefficient outperforms the
                > larger
                > > exactly half the time, although with a larger standard error. The
                > difference
                > > is small enough (to me) as to not warrant using the extra decimal
                > places.
                > > What is needed is some empirical data, counting actual
                possessions
                > in a
                > > game, and seeing how close we are.
                >
                > I've got some of these. I'll try to pass them on after I'm done
                > traveling (again).
                >
                > My general comment to Ben when he first passed on his note to me
                was
                > that he may be right that 0.45 works better to account for FT
                > possessions. However, there are minor errors in the rest of the
                > possession formula associated with team ORs and other little things
                > that get lumped into that multiplier on FTA. Or you can get more
                > complex with your possession formula, something BobC has done.
                >
                > I share the sentiment that it doesn't matter too much. Soon, we
                will
                > be able to just count possessions for each team and do the simple
                > division to get pts/poss. Still, the formula estimate will remain
                > useful (in historical work, in individual possession calcs), but
                the
                > difference between 0.4 and 0.45 won't make a huge difference in
                > estimates. Plus, the multiplier changes with rules and enforcement
                > of such. It was lower in the 3-to-make-2 era, for example, and is
                > higher in the 1-and-1 world of college hoops.
                >
                > DeanO
              • Dean Oliver
                ... affect), ... The problem is that your last 3 terms aren t available in most stat books so we end up estimating them. I just end up rolling them into the
                Message 7 of 8 , Jun 23, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, bchaikin@a... wrote:
                  > the proper formula is:
                  >
                  > FGA + FTA/2 + TO - oreb - techFTA - (AOSF FGM) - flagrants
                  >
                  > (denominator 2 larger prior to 81-82 when 3 to make 2 bonus was in
                  affect),
                  > but i add 0.33 to account for the techs and flagrants...
                  >

                  The problem is that your last 3 terms aren't available in most stat
                  books so we end up estimating them. I just end up rolling them into
                  the multiplier on FTA, but there are other ways.

                  DeanO
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.